If my manager asked me to give her a separate time report showing all this detail, would that be an inappropriate step which would suggest that I am being treated as an employee who should get benefit.
A: The issue of whether or not an employee is transformed into an employee of the contractor in a leased employment relationship devolves to whether or not the employee meets the definition of a "common law employee" under the test first set out in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U. S. 730 (1989):
"In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party." See also, Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 112 S.Ct. 1344, 117 L.Ed.2d 581 (1992); Bronk v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel., Inc., 943 F. Supp. 1317 (1996).
A singular request by an employer to more carefully detail an employee's work product is probably insufficient to bring the employee within the scope of precedent decisions in this area of employment law.
Though, in this author's opinion, practically all so-called leased employment arrangements are shams to avoid the true purpose of the agreement, which is precisely to avoid paying benefits to employees, for whom the employer does not consider core personnel worthy of such treatment. Left unchecked, employers will eventually exclude everyone -- though the IRS will carefully scrutinize a benefit plan where it is discovered that more than 20% of non-highly compensated employees are outsourced/leased. The problem is that there is no routine manner to discover this threshold, because employers are not required to report it to the IRS. It arises only as the result of an audit concerning some other employment/tax issue.
My manager may take the view that I should not work at home but should come into the office at 5-6-7 am (well before office hours ) to work on my blackberry and take calls. Most other attorneys in the department work from home constantly, as does my manager. I think this would be unreasonable to require me to do this (for an hour or so of early morning work) and would also be another indicia of her treating me as her employee subject to benefits, and not a consultant.
A: Now this suggests more strongly that the bank manager is controlling the manner and method of your labor. As a professional, you ought to be able to control your time spent as long as you get the job done. The counterargument is that you're being paid by the hour, so the bank may want to see you working in the building. The rebuttal would be that closely monitoring an employee at work is probably the single strongest indicia of employer control. So, yes, if you are forced to play precisely by the bank's rules, while performing a job that does not require that sort of precise monitoring, then I think you may in fact have crossed the link into the bank's employment ranks.
Hope this helps.